- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- aiop@lemmy.world
‘I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics,’ Republican candidate tells Fox’s Maria Bartiromo
…
“And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military,” he said.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people who have come in, who are destroying our country.”
It isn’t clear under what circumstances Trump would view it justifiable to call in US troops against his own countrymen.
But his comments mark a baseless attack and a particularly hollow one coming from someone whose supporters violently attacked the US Capitol in an attempt to stop him from being thrown out of office three years ago.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
You must log in or register to comment.
This is a reminder to American service members:
Your oath of allegiance is to the United States, not to Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris. You have a duty to obey lawful orders issued under the authority of the commander in chief. But it is your duty to disobey unlawful orders.
The oath is actually to the Constitution of the United States. So it’s not even the country or the government but the idea, the founding document.
Is it the current one, or the originalist one, or the supreme court interpretation one, or the cherry picked and misunderstood one, or?
Removed by mod
No, it’s a very serious question. What happens when Trump gives an illegal order, a soldier refuses to obey it, and is arrested? What do you think John Roberts’ SCOTUS will say? You think it’s too far-fetched for a 6-3 ruling saying “Well, the Constitution says that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces therefore there exists no mechanism nor rationale for any member of the armed services to disobey” to happen?
Hell, what do people think will happen if, let’s say hypothetically:
- Trump organizes a civilian militia to attack the country
- Trump actively refuses to order the military to protect people from said militia
- Said militia isolate and attempt to murder basically everyone else in the government who can provide those orders
But nah, that would NEVER happen. And people totally wouldn’t brag about the military waiting to see how things shake out was their god given duty.
- Trump actively refuses to order the military to protect people from said militia
Actually, it could be even worse than that. Trump could theoretically order the military to not interfere at all.
In a context where the checks and balances and norms around separation of powers and jurisdiction functioned as intended instead of being undermined and co-opted, the SC normally does not intrude into UCMJ matters. But I’m also quite sure that won’t stop the Tribunal of Six, so who fuckin’ knows.
We are going back to absolute monarchies in which the king incarnated the law and couldn’t do anything illegal.
The Supreme Court already sent us back there.
The problem is that the current admin that was just given the power, thinks they’ll set a bad example if they actually use it. A more charitable take could be that, maybe they think if they don’t talk about it the orange moron will forget he’ll have the power too (he won’t).
The problem I think is more that the conservative majority in the court would never rule they apply to Democrats.
Lol, civil war then? Imagine trying to arrest the ones with the guns. I’d imagine a big, although still a minority, chunk of troops would immediately defect and form an insurgency under such actions.
Removed by mod
Speaking of bad-faith posters…
Removed by mod
No, they’re saying that any law asking people to disobey the institutions propped up by that same law in case of them being unjust will always ring hollow, because the courts that decide if that point of legitimacy has been reached will be staffed by the very same people you’d be disobeying.
No court will rule that rebellion against the state is justified. It’s either ‘not legitimate yet, because other options are available’, or it’s too late, because independent courts have been abolished.
This is the correct answer.
The military has never had any hesitancy at all in murdering American citizens when told to. They will not stand up.
Killing people is the reason why some of them joined in the first place.
It isn’t clear under what circumstances Trump would view it justifiable to call in US troops against his own countrymen.
Isn’t it though? He would view it justifiable to call them in for literally any reason.
The media, as usual, talks as if they’re trying to discern his secret, rational plan. Even when he spouts fascist threats of mass oppression and murder, they discuss him as if he’s just another politician with policy proposals. It’s unclear under what circumstances he’d call in troops against Americans because he’s psychologically chaotic, fragile and highly volatile. Anything could trigger him to do so. The only thing that’s consistent is he threatens retribution against immigrants, trans people, Black people, women, and anyone who doesn’t worship him enough.
“They brought me a turkeyberder instead of a HAMberder?! Call SEAL Team 6!!”
"I don’t think [immigrants] are the problem in terms of election day,” Trump told Bartiromo. “I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics.”
At that point, he suggested a seemingly sinister solution.
“And it should be easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military,” he said.
“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within. Not even the people who have come in, who are destroying our country.”
He’s called Biden a “radical leftist”, it’s anyone who won’t vote for him…
If anyone actually believes Biden is a radical leftist it has to be a combination of a failure of the education system and systemic brainwashing.
looks at his mom
…yeah it’s both. 😒
What are you saying about my mom?
You’ve got a user name only a mother could love
Oh she disowned me years ago.
…
…
…how did I never see the resemblance before? It’s uncanny.
The fact that anyone in America politics is being called a radical leftist is funny.
"I don’t think [immigrants] are the problem in terms of election day,” Trump told Bartiromo. “I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical left lunatics.”
And yet there are SO many “radical left lunatics” right here on lemmy that seem to think both sides are equally as bad.
Let Trump round them up then. Problem solved.
Trump being a lunatic doesn’t automatically make the Democratic party the good guys. We don’t live in a Marvel movie.
Do you live in such a nuance-less world that you automatically assume that if someone is saying that Trump is exponentially worse than Harris- what they really mean is that Harris is the epitome of all things good and can do no wrong?
You should maybe look into fixing that.
And marvel movies are hot garbage. So, I’d never compare anything even capable of being somewhat mediocre with them.
No, but I look at people espousing right-wing beliefs such as yourself and think of how far the Democratic party has fallen and why they struggle to compete against someone like Trump. It’s like you’re in a race with MAGA supporters to see who can destroy the country first.
No, but I look at people espousing right-wing beliefs such as yourself
Maybe I don’t know how to read… Where did this person espouse right-wing beliefs? I consider myself pretty far to the left, and everything they said is correct and reasonable.
Thank you.
ROFL…. I’m espousing right wing belief now?
Is everyone that disagrees with you right wing?
Supporting genocide, calling those who don’t support genocide “the radical left”, calling for the US to back out of places like Ukraine for a few examples. All right wing rhetoric and beliefs.
I also noticed you and this other guy prole always seem to follow each other around on lemmy and reply to each other’s comments with similar rhetoric. Kinda funny how that works…
And I noticed that you like to make false accusations of people you know nothing about. Is it accurate to assume that every far left outraged idealist is you? Because you seem to show up a lot where they’re being called out. And your single example is surely enough to base an accusation on.
it’s funny how you jumped on the one thing you believed you could build a strawman out of- I never said anything about Ukraine. In case you’re not aware, America recently sent troops to Israel to help with defense against Iran. I was talking about that-
Most people would have extrapolated this.
Which app is that?
Well in is obviously the better choice.
I don’t see that often.
What I see a lot of is accounts that say Kamala has to be “conservative” on some issues to get votes, but can’t give a valid reason why Kamala sticks with unpopular policy like pro-genocide or pro-fracking.
But she doesn’t take the threat of trump seriously enough to make her want to aide with the platform of her own goddamn party. She like genocide and fracking too much apparently, and it would be cynical to imply it was the donations and not her genuine feelings on the issues
Not a single person is saying she needs to be conservative. You know this. Everyone knows this. So, nice bad faith straw man there.
What people are saying is that she needs to play the centrist game to garner support. It’s a known thing that any candidate that dabbles in “leftists” territory is unelectable. Maybe it’s the stink of delusion and ignorance, or maybe it’s their lack of any semblance of organization.
My guess if asked, is that no one takes their embarrassing “pRo GeNoCiDe” accusations seriously.
You don’t get to threaten candidates with your sad little withheld votes and demand them to kiss your asses while they jump through your single-issue hoop.
That’s not how politics work. It’s not how politics ever worked, and it’s not how politics ever will work.
She’s trying to save democracy. With, or without your help.
Not a single person is saying she needs to be conservative
So why is she for:
-
Fracking
-
A border wall
-
Coninuing support for genocide
People defend her move to the right on those three and more fucking daily…
Like, you think no one is pressuring her into that and she is willing to risk trump by being more conservative than the Dem voter base because she believes in those three things that much?
If you want to “save democracy” you’d be doing anything you can to get her more votes, that means dragging her back left towards the party base.
She keeps going right, and her numbers keep dropping. It ain’t a coinky dink bud
Be against fracking and lose Pennsylvania.
Genius move there sport. It’s a wonder you aren’t a political consultant.
Dude. If you are against a modern economy with electricity, don’t be a hypocrite.
Turn off your phone and go outside and sit there by yourself.
You’re right. It’s better that we keep pandering to the lowest common denominator time and time again and lose Pennsylvania to something else like a massive hurricane because at least then we can say we won some contests along the way.
So… since you’re incapable of having a discussion without resorting to accusing people of supporting genocide- I’m going to end this here and flag you as a bad actor.
accusing people of supporting genocide
They say just as it’s announced that the US is sending troops to Israel.
Also, I find you trying to minimize genocide down to something akin to legalizing weed and mocking the OP as a “single issue voter” to be quite abhorrent. If Harris loses the election, it’s going to be in part to disgusting viewpoints such as yours.
Removed by mod
-
Touch grass. If a Democratic presidential candidate were to come out strongly against Israel prior to Election Day, they will lose.
You need to get a better understanding of the political situation in your own country.
And polls continue to call the race a tie.
At some point we have to acknowledge that roughly 30% of our population are just evil, fascist monsters. Having lived in those states, this isn’t a surprise.
Some of them are just country bumpkins who vote for whoever their pastor says
Still counts
Still counts more in fact. Our system is broken.
The system in question:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0065
There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections.
The south has a massive advantage in the electoral college because they demanded to be able to launder slave votes.
The bigger problem is that the number of seats in the House has been frozen for about a hundred years. Our population exploded, but our number of representatives stayed static, so places with the most people actually get less representation in congress.
On top of this, the number of electors a state has its equal to the number of representatives that state has in the Senate and the House combined. So more populated states also get underrepresented in the presidential election.
The Three-Fifths Compromise was absolutely fucked, but it’s not what is deadlocking the House now and its not what is letting a people lose the popular vote and still go on to be president in 21st century elections.
If we took away the at large electoral seats, and the senate, that would get us halfway to fixing the representation problem.
The house would be next, but that’s a more moderate problem compared to the other half.
Been in their churches, you hear the chorus loud and clear when he talks about ‘taking the country back from the powers of satan and other elitists’. He doesn’t mean Olympic athletes.
And the problem is that a county of 1000 dipshit rednecks like that have as much voting power as a major metropolitan area.
Removed by mod
I’m quite certain what you need to do is get every one else voting. That’s kind of how the whole thing is supposed to work.
Removed by mod
We need to find those churches then and report them to the IRS no?
I’d say 20% are just absolute morons that watched ancient aliens and garbage like that back in the day then fell for every dumbass psyop conspiracy theory on the Internet. Now they are willfully ignorant of facts and truth.
Removed by mod
The guy’s a nutjob and the fact that his candidacy is still being framed as having any air of legitimacy by the media is fucking disgusting.
Edit: any reason I got downvoted into the dirt for asking for a source on real polling numbers because I didn’t have time to do my own digging right at that moment?
Not that downvotes generally bother me but JeeZe. Wasn’t even expressing an opinion just looking for clarification. And thanks to those who provided it.
ORIGINAL
All the polls I can find show them damn near dead even now.
That was a 20 second search though do you have a source?
Are the polls landline calls? If so you are going to get mostly boomers that still have a landline
Almost all reputable polling groups have an all-the-above strategy. They also attempt to adjust for errors in polling due to things like the aforementioned “only old people have landlines” issue. Turnout is what ACTUALLY wins elections, and there are a LOT of people who will turn out for the orange turd, so we all need to make sure that we are turning out everyone we can too.
I’ve long felt that regardless of the levels of “we factored that into our results” that pollsters can accomplish, at the end of the day, these polls can only survey that demographic of “people who agreed to be polled”.
That being said, I feel that Trump gets a slight advantage in any advanced polling thanks to his cult of personality: between Trump and any opponent thus far, a greater percentage of Trump’s followers are more likely to be “loud and proud” enough to want to have their voice heard by a pollster.
I feel this effect is even more pronounced now, with a significant portion of the voting public falling into the camp of “conservative, but put off by Jan. 6th”. People who voted for Trump twice but who won’t this year. These people are also less likely to want to participate in polls.
Where I feel this effect may have tricky implications is whether they stick to their beliefs in the polling booth or just cave in the final moment and still vote Trump…or if they simply don’t vote at the top of the ticket (or vote 3rd party)…but still vote for Republicans down-ticket.
While I’m no pollster, I would not be surprised to find that Trump underperforms vs projections, even as the GOP overperforms in House and Senate elections.
I pray you’re right, and fear that you might be wrong. The “red wave” that was supposed to happen and was wrong last time gives me a small amount of hope.
That’s largely been corrected for. The “red wave” phenomenon was largely the result of democrats fretting about internal polling which is consistently biased toward the campaign of which it is “internal.”
In most research on this topic, democrats are more likely to participate in election polling. Nevertheless, modern polling weights their polls accordingly. They also do significantly more statistical weighting to correct for various types of effects that would increase polling errors.
The biggest aspect to pay attention to this season is the use of “weighting on recalled vote.” It is the primary reason you’re seeing two distinct sets of polling results. Regardless of which set you look at, all highly rated polls show the election within the margin of error.
The sad part is that half the population doesn’t bother voting
“There’s a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people.”
So say we all.
The supreme court decided police are under no obligation to serve or protect
“I think the bigger problem are the people from within, we have some very bad people, sick people, radical
leftlunatics."Yeah Don, we know. They even wear a red hat to help identify themselves.
“dictator day one”
“prosecute my opposition”
“prosecute my critics”
It seems insane to think people are shooting at him because they’re listening to democrats (something the MSM largely does not do) and not because people are just listening to the things he’s saying he’ll do.
It seems insane to think people are shooting at him because they’re listening to democrats
I’m confused by this sentence. What do Democrats have to do with any of this?
Trump has had multiple assassination attempts on him this year, and each time it happens Trump blames Democratic rhetoric as the motivating force.
Of course, anybody who took even a cursory look into the motives of each would-be assassin (and let’s be frank, it’s a big stretch to call some of these guys assassins - getting caught with a loaded weapon near where Trump is located is apparently enough to be considered an assassination attempt, even if Trump was never in any danger) they are often Republicans who absolutely hate the Democrats, so they wouldn’t be listening to their political rhetoric anyway which has been nothing short of “Political violence is not the solution, let’s win at the ballot box in November.”
Meanwhile, Trump is promising to be a dictator on day one, promoting eugenics, deploying the armed forces to deport legal residents, threatening to prosecute and jail his political opponents and revoke the 1st amendment rights of his critics, but refuses to answer calls to “turn the temperature down”.
the media line was that democrats were being to mean to trump.
I don’t know, some republicans think Democrats have something to do with this?
For the millionth time all leftists should be armed. Cannot stress enough how important that is.
What would be grounds for lethal action? Self defense against the national guard? An ar-15 won’t be able to do much against that. The only option for your own survival is not to play
When you’re fighting against fascism survival isn’t the most important thing.
That’s fair. Personally, I am no soldier, I intend to flee if the US become a battleground, and I would encourage, even go out of my way to help, my friends and family flee as well. I would really oppose anyone I know dying for a political cause.
If survival was your goal, I’d agree being armed probably wouldn’t help much.
lol, leftists here are doing everything they can to take away the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
That type of comment may have gone over well back on reddit but, sir, we are not idiots here. UTTER BULLSHIT, LEFTISTS DO NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. We want that right too. We just don’t want mentally ill people having access to assault weapons with which they can kill many, many people with significantly reduced effort. Someone going on a rampage with a pistol or a shotgun is far less deadly than someone with a long rifle of any type, especially automatic rifles. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT LEFTIST DO NOT WANT TO TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY.
But if they did, it would be ok too.
I want to take away everyone’s arms. This country would be safer without guns.
You rant loudly but wrongly about “assault weapons”. The fact is that pistols are used to kill far more people in the USA (and elsewhere) than “assault weapons” and any other kind of rifle. 3% or less of all homicides involve any kind of rifle.
Go on, name the leftists doing that. That’s liberal shit.
Furthermore how many mass shootings are committed with hand guns? Mass shootings are the target of ‘assault weapon’ rhetoric, not gun violence. And any one with a more than surface level knowledge understands how silly the framing and blaming on AR style guns has been.
But to call that ‘coming from the left’ is insanity. The media if staunchy neoliberal, the politicians are too. The dems pushing that gun control are just as right wing as the ‘moderate conservatives’, they are reactionary liberals all the same bud. Reactionary liberals are the types who call for such extreme bans (books, guns, abortion, contraception).
Every leftist I’ve ever met is completely for the right to bear arms. Other than the ones who realise that against the advanced military might of nations in 2024 owning your own gun of any capacity is meaningless (against state tyranny).
The state has a monopoly on violence bud, owning a high capacity rifle will not protect you from state tyranny, neither will a hand gun. But a hand gun is a far more effective self defense tool for home defense than an AR15. So if it’s not for state tyranny, and its not for self defense, it’s either pure gun fetishism or you have a purpose to unload the high capacity ammunition rapidly (that could be 40 wild hogs or you know 40 wild schoolchildren).
That being said, I still think you should be able to get them. Its called ‘gun control’ you know, background checks, ensuring safety. Not ‘ban all guns’.
Responsible owners are no problem in my book, nor does banning a gun platform make sense. Curtailing the constant terrorism against our children and minoritys should be a high priority for anyone though. Left or right, its not simply ‘a fact of life’.
Anyway brain dump but main point is y’all mfers need to stop conflating centre libbies with the left. Its fucking mind numbing.
Democrats are not leftists.
The old saying is; if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.
Military weapons? Yeah. They should be.
Pistols? Shotguns? Not really. And yes, you can point to more extreme cases of ‘liberals’ who do want to amend the constitution, which is about the same thing as calling anyone even slightly conservative on one issue a fascist.
OMG! The former president is threatening mass violence and possible oppression by using the US Military on the citizens! Oh btw you shouldn’t have a weapon that looks like the one the military uses or shoots faster than those made 100 years ago.
The AR-15 is not a military weapon, purely civilian. In any case you should be able to own military firearms, the government is not to be trusted.
An AK is a better fit, lol.
But (just going with this for a second) I dont see a scenario where even having like an M240 is going to make much of a difference going up against the US military. What do you picture happening, a good honest firefight? At that point homemade bombs and such are your only resort where a pistol wouldn’t work.
Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam have left the chat. Why is this talking point always used to counter gun rights? It’s objectively not true ans has been proven time and time again. It’s guerilla / asymmetrical warfare, thr gov has to come to you.
The AKs available to the US consumer are also not weapons of war, they are strictly semi automatic.
An M240 would be a major upgrade in such a scenario. It would be more effective than a pistol, ideally you would have people with M240s and people making IEDs.
Yes. Gravy Team 6 has spent generations fighting an asymmetrical war against Russia then the US and I’m sure they train every day at Taliban compounds or are remnants of the Republican Guard
Be real: they sit in their garage drinking shitty beer and jerking off their unsatisfying-to-anyone cocks to guns, trucks, and Trump
I mean, they did a great job Jan 6, when Babbitt did not comply, of fighting back and showing big ol tyrannical gov! /s
Jk, they ran like little girls as soon as the reality set in
Lemme see any of these fucks hump full battle rattle 15 miles before we talk about them staging an insurgent war against the US
Christ, I bet all but a handful can’t do a single pull-up
Yes, there are people in that culture that are capable of small-arms engagement, using fire and maneuver to close with engage and destroy the enemy, but the VAST majority of them are fatbody chodes who fantasize about living in right-wing Divergence or some other young adult fantasy novel series
In a most likely scenario, this ends up being a quick decapitation strike at those attempting to hold the Republic together, or ends up being a low engagement years long drawn out war. The military would be reluctant on both sides, leading to mostly an arms race of local and state police battling disgruntled / rioting citizens with some groups of more organized cells. The Troubles and not GWOT.
a semi-auto AK and an AR are functionally identical for most practical purposes.
As for the scenario proposed: any direct long engangement would be suicide, but other tactics would be viable. The most likely scenario in the US would look something like The Troubles in Ireland.
But it’s possible a significant portion the military could defect, which could make things look a little more like the Spanish Civil War.
Also, I would point to the existence of Rojava, which for years has been able to hold out against Turkey despite Turkey having access to significantly more sophisticated hardware.
The US military failed to fight insurgents in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. What makes you think they’d be any better against an insurgency in the US, especially when it’d involve a good portion of people in their own ranks?
You guys are living a fantasy if you think a large chunk of the US population will turn into the Taliban, Viet Cong, Mujahideen or whatever over which party is in the govt and whatever antics you think Trump or Harris get up to.
We live in a rich, militarized surveillance state. A rifle is not how you fight that.
For now. But if you can’t imagine any scenario where an M240 would be useful, you’re very shortsighted. If (and this is a big if) we devolve into civil war, then an armed insurgency is very much on the table. All the tech stuff relies on infrastructure, and stable infrastructure is one of the first things to go.
Removed by mod
Well liberals certainly are, I don’t know if I’d say leftists are.
Oh hey, treason man is yet again announcing publicly that he’s a treasonous piece of shit and that he plans to continue committing treason? Wow, what shocking news. /s
Why wouldn’t he continue? It’s not like there’s ever any consequences for him.
But I don’t like treason!
So that’s how he plans to make the economy better, to force his opposition to leave the country and appropriate their wealth and property. Who did Nazi that coming?
What is a Nazi dictator to do but follow his heart.
This rhetoric is meant for voter intimidation because they know Republicans always lose when Democrats turn out to vote.
The polls are meaningless because they could be manipulated or manufactured, we don’t know who’s being polled. People just need to cast their vote and not let this be a close election.
I will never express my opinions in places where I can be easily identified unless I am among people I know and trust. I will vote and keep my leftist ideology to myself amongst strangers irl. I rather like living without being bothered.
There’s no such thing as living without being bothered in an autocratic regime, doesn’t matter who you are. You could be the most ardent supporter and you’d still be shit out of luck for any reason. Stalin used to have his own cabinet members routinely disposed of
I meant being bothered as in strangers harassing me for my beliefs lol. I live in a grossly red part of my state and I keep a low profile out of what I feel is necessity
I do too but idgaf and start shit with anyone stupid enough to try with me. I made the religious sign holders leave Pride fest by simply talking absolute fucking nonsense with adamant of a mood. They left shortly thereafter. I was a volunteer for the event wearing the shirt and all.
I had a sign in my yard that said “support trans kids” someone peeled into my driveway, leaving huge ruts in the gravel/mud, and stole the sign one day when I wasn’t home. That’s when I decided to not voice my opinion openly like that anymore.
Oh I would post it only when I was ready to fish for evidence and…well…yeah. Once we caught them, fry them for dinner
This is EXACTLY what the Founders Intended! George Washington LITERALLY said that the US Military should be used on US Citizens and that Children should be Gunned Down in School!
Yup, I was there! I remember it well!
This guy in my discord I got into an argument with recently was going on about how he’s voting for Trump because he cares about the constitution. You can’t win with these clowns
George Washington literally led the army against American civilians in the Whiskey Rebellion, so that’s probably not the best example.
Didn’t he try to use the military the last time and he was told no? What a psycho.
He might not be told “no” this time, though. He would be CiC, he would be their boss.
Wasn’t he their boss last time?
After being told “no”, he started purging officers that take their constitutional duty seriously.
